Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Windows Delays are a Visaster (sic)

__/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Friday 16 June 2006 00:00 \__

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, M
> <ihatespam.0.a101888@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  wrote
> on Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:50:07 GMT
> <jCkkg.86700$wl.15039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> | "A team manager for Windows for 5 years has decided to write a
>>>> | blog-essay about what caused Windows Vista project to miss the due
>>>> | date. Philip tells us in the blog, that Windows developers are writing
>>>> | an average of 5000 lines of code (which is *only* 1200 lines less than
>>>> | the national average of 6200 lines of code per year). He addresses
>>>> | issues like the Vista code being too complicated, the processes the
>>>> | developers have to follow too complex and a lot more. All in all it
>>>> | gives a nice insight into why Vista will be late, from a
>>>> | different perspective.
>>> 
>>> I wrote more like 13,000 lines of code last year (thanks, wc) and that
>>> was
>>> all on my own spare time.  What the hell are they paying programmers for
>>> these days?  Are these the raw figures or do projects that get cancelled
>>> or rewritten count for nothing?
>>
>> I've recently been using one of these packages that helps you check your
>> C/C++ code, and have been *very* surprised by what the compiler has let me
>> get away with. If Microsoft are using their own compilers then that might
>> go some way to explaining why they have so many problems.


The Visual Studio debugger, however, is said to be very good. GNU lacks a
good debugger. gdb and front-ends such as ddd don't really do the trick.
Having said that, the compiler and its verbosity are a different matter
altogether.

One binary that I produced in VS was about 5 times slower than that which I
produced with GCC, under Linux. Some people have said it might be related to
the flags (e.g. debugging), restructuring and some other parameters, and
code. I am not sure if the GLUT library that it was heavily based on was any
different, but either way, I was very unimpressed with VC's product.


>> I haven't written any code using things like gcc so I don't know how that
>> compares?
>>
> 
> Gcc is a mixed bag, from what I've seen in the past.  There was an HP
> compiler, in particular, that caught quite a number of things gcc didn't
> even report with all of its warnings on.
> 
> Still, it'll catch the simpler stuff, but "oopsie" loops like this:
> 
> for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
>    for(int j = 0; j < 10; i++) /* oops */
>       /* ... */
> 
> would take some doing to catch unless there's a special check.
> 
> It's still better than MS C++, AFAIK.


I suspect this is true, but I lack experience to comment on this with
confidence.

Best wishes,

Roy

-- 
Roy S. Schestowitz      |    No SCO code was used to generate this sig
http://Schestowitz.com  |  GNU is Not UNIX  ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
 11:35am  up 49 days 16:49,  11 users,  load average: 3.63, 3.16, 2.99
      http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index